Author Archives: admin

Power laws & power plants – tackling IoT systems risk classification

Do aspects of Shodan data – data about Internet of Things (IoT) devices and systems – demonstrate ‘long tail’ qualities? Data showing these qualities sometimes also go by the name of having a ‘Zipf distribution‘, following a power law, or behaving according to the Pareto principle. If there is in fact a reoccurring relationship or curve that occurs across aspects of IoT data, that might offer some insights into how to categorize or classify aspects of IoT systems. For managing risk around IoT systems implementations, our current ability to classify and categorize these systems is sorely missing. Potentially, it could also offer predictive capabilities regarding elements of the Internet of Things phenomena.

To take an initial swing at it, I narrowed the question down to:

Do the frequencies of occurrences of particular ports (services) in an organization, or other Shodan data set, behave in a repeatable way?

Long tails & power laws

The concept of long tail behavior was popularized in Chris Anderson’s 2004 Wired article and it has entered popular vernacular in the years since. What Anderson articulated was that aspects of many systems or sets of data are characterized by the observation that there are a lot of a few types of things and then a rapidly dropping number of other types of things — but there are a lot of those other types. Anderson used the example of record sales — there are a relatively few mega-hit songs, but there are a lot of non-hit songs and record companies were learning how to capitalize on this observation. This is the long tail.

George Zipf

George Zipf

Another example is early ‘long tail’ work attributed to George Zipf with his analysis of word distribution frequencies in any particular text. He found that if you:

  1. counted how often each word appeared in a text
  2. ranked each word so that the word with the highest count got the highest rank (i.e. #1) and down from there
  3. plot the results in a graph

then you find a curve that shows that a few words show up a lot.

 

For example, the words ‘the’, ‘be’, and ‘to’ show up a lot (1st, 2nd, & 3rd in a ranked list) and words like ‘teeth’, ‘shell’, or ‘neck’ shows up around 1000 places down the list. From the first few spots in the ranked list, the frequencies of other ranked words fall off quickly — but there a lot of those ‘other’ words. Further, this curve is a power law which looks a bit like y = 1/x. Variations include multiplying 1/x by something and raising x to some exponent. (For Zipf relationships, this exponent is often close to 1).

Yet other Zipf relationships are found in studies of populations of cities data and website references.

citypopulationdata

Ranking city population sizes also follows Zipf-like relationships (the loglog plot is fairly linear)

Power law relationships in IoT data?

John Matherly, founder of Shodan, has been collecting data on IoT sorts of devices for years. He scans all publicly accessible IP addresses for particular ports for Internet of Things or Industrial Control systems including things like power plants, video cameras, HVAC systems, and others.

I have a particular interest in how IoT data shows in higher education IP address spaces, so I analyzed large subsets of data in some of those institutions. To do this I queried for data from those publicly facing IP spaces in the organization and exported it to a json format. (Shodan also offers an XML version, but it is deprecated). From the downloaded data, I used Python scripts to clean the data a bit, count how often each port occurred, and then rank them by organization. Finally, I used the Python module matplotlib to plot the results.

This is similar to the word frequency analysis approach above where, for a set of data:

  1. Count the number of occurrences of each port (service)
  2. Rank the ports so that the port (service) that occurs most frequently gets the highest rank
  3. Plot the results

Like word frequency data in Zipf studies, a plot of frequency of occurrence of each port vs rank of each port’s frequency yields a curve that drops off so fast that it is hard to discern nuanced information. However, the fact that it does drop off so fast let’s us know something at a glance that is similar to Zipf data — a very few ports occur most often and a lot of ports have a few occurrences.

nonlogmultipleuniversity

4 universities and 1 (organizationally) arbitrary & large) set of IP addresses on normal (non-log) plot

What gets more interesting visually is to plot that same data on a log log scale. This kind of brings the curve out to where it’s easier to see.

Zipf-like data can follow the relationship of y = 1/x almost exactly for much of the range. (This is part of why word frequency, city population data, etc is so intriguing.) So when plotted on log log, much of the line looks almost straight – slope of 1 (ish).

A log log plot of university IoT data doesn’t yield a straight line, but sort of a bulging out line. If you were standing on the graph way out to the right and up and looking toward the origin, it would appear convex. So this isn’t Zipf in the traditional sense — the log log plot is not linear.

However, they do look similar. University1 looks roughly like University2. University2 like University3, and University3 like University4, etc. The curve roughly retains its shape regardless of the school, though the school sizes are different (or at least the number of public IP addresses are different).

loglogmultipleuniversity

4 universities and 1 (organizationally) arbitrary & large set of IP addresses on log log plot

Maybe the organization doesn’t matter?

Also plotted are the results from a search on all of the IP addresses in the 128.0.0.0/8 range (using CIDR notation).  This curve, though bigger and slightly smoother, has roughly the same shape as the others. The main thing that separates it from the others appears to be magnitude (number of IP addresses sampled). It appears that there is nothing particularly unique about an organization that drives this curve shape — a similar shape appears even if a set based on a numerical range, regardless of organization, is chosen.

It will be interesting to see if, as IoT device count grows, the curve changes shape. Will the set of IoT devices across the globe continue to communicate mostly over the same ports/services as those currently in use, keeping the same shape? Or will new ports/services/enumerations show themselves as IoT device proliferation continues, changing the shape?  By analyzing ranking relationships over time and between organizations, this approach could provide some insight into helpful categorizations for risk analysis.

Institutional considerations for managing risk around IoT

socket

sockets for vendor products & services

There are a number of things to think about when planning and deploying an IoT system in your institution. In posts here since last spring, several issues have been touched upon — the idea of sockets and seams in vendor relationships, the rapid growth in vendor relationships to be managed and the resulting costs to your organization, communicating IoT risk, some quick risk visualization techniques based on Shodan data, initial categorization of IoT systems, and others.  The FBI warning on IoT last week is a further reminder of what we’re up against.

There is a lot to chew on and digest in this rapidly changing IoT ecosystem. Below is a partial list of some things to consider when planning and deploying IoT systems and devices in your institution. It’s not a checklist where all work is done when the checking is complete. Rather, it is intended to be a starting list of potential talking points that you can have with your team and your potential IoT vendors.

Some IoT Planning Considerations

  • Does IoT vendor need 1 (or more) data feeds/data sharing from your organization?
    • Are the data feeds well-defined?
    • Do they exist already?
    • If not, who will create & support them?
    • Are there privacy considerations?
  • How many endpoint devices will be installed?
    • Is there a patch plan?
    • Do you do the patching?
    • Who manages the plan, you or the vendor?
  • Does this vendor’s system have dependencies on other systems?
  • How many IoT systems are you already managing?
    • How many endpoints do you already have?
    • Are you anticipating/planning or planning more in the next 18 months?
  • Is there a commissioning plan? Or have IoT vendor deliverable expectations otherwise been stated (contract, memorandum of understanding, letter, other?)
    • Has the vendor changed default logins and passwords? Has the password schema been shared with you?
    • Are non-required ports closed on all your deployed IoT endpoints?
    • Has the vendor port scanned (or similar) all deployed IoT endpoints after installation?
    • Is there a plan (for you or vendor) to periodically spot check configuration of endpoint devices?
  • Has the installed system been documented?
    • Is there (at least) a simple architecture diagram?
      • Server configuration documented?
      • Endpoint IP addresses & ports indicated?
  • Who pays for the vendor’s system requirements (eg hardware, supporting software, networking, etc?)
    • Does local support (staffing/FTE) exist to support the installation? Is it available? Will it remain available?
    • If supporting IoT servers are hosted in a data center, who pays those costs?
      • startup & ongoing costs?
    • Same for cloud — if hosted in cloud, who pays those costs?
      • startup & ongoing costs?
  • What is total operational cost after installation?
    • licensing costs
    • support contract costs
    • hosting requirements costs
    • business resiliency requirements costs
      • eg redundancy, recovery, etc for OS, databases, apps
  • How can the vendor demonstrate contract performance?
    • Okay to ask vendor to help you figure this out
  • Who in your organization will manage the vendor contract for vendor performance?
    • Without person/team to do this, the contract won’t get managed
  • Can vendor maintenance contract offset local IT support shortages?
    • If not, then this might not be the deal you want
  • For remote support, how does vendor safeguard login & account information?
    • Do they have a company policy or Standard Operating Procedure that they can share with you?
  • Is a risk sharing agreement in place between you and the vendor?
    • Who is liable for what?

Typically, with the resources at hand, it will be difficult to get through all of these — maybe even some of these. The important thing, though, is to get through what we can and then be aware of and acknowledge the ones we weren’t able to do. It’s way better to know we’ve come up short given limited resources than to think we’ve covered everything when we’re not even in the ballpark.

Talking about IoT

word cloud from 3 business magazine articles on IoT

word cloud from 3 business magazine articles on IoT

I was curious if language in articles and blog posts on IoT varied significantly with the type of magazine or blog. So my unscientific quick and dirty research was to use three semi-arbitrarily* chosen articles from three different types of blog or magazine, do word frequency counts in each of these, and then from this do a word cloud where font size varies with frequency of the word count. The three magazine/blog types were: business magazine or blog, industry trade magazine or blog, and vendor magazine or blog.  (*I say ‘semi-arbitrarily’ because I chose them all myself and I’m sure my Googling/searching habits aren’t without some bias).

The first word cloud above was made by piling the words of all three articles together and then doing a word frequency count on the combined verbiage, sorting the counts, and then creating a word cloud. I used Wordle.net to do this and it makes the last three steps pretty easy to do.

Similarly, I made sorted word frequency word clouds for articles from three industry/trade magazines/blogs and did the same again for vendor magazines/blogs:

tradeiotwordcloud

word cloud from 3 industry/trade magazines/blogs

vendoriotwordcloud

word cloud from 3 vendor blogs

Side by side, they look like:

side by side comparison of the same

side by side comparison of the same (click to increase size)

While there are a number of things that could be done to make the comparison more robust (higher sample count, remove ‘stop words‘, etc), I think even this little snippet of samples shares some interesting results (or at least provides direction/motivation for digging deeper with a larger sample set). Some ‘eyeball’ observations from this sample set:

  • security & privacy more prevalent in trade/industry articles/posts
  • vendor articles/posts seem to hit harder on data
  • trades & vendors heavier on sensors
  • business sample skewed some with a chunk of text from one article dedicated to talking about IoT parking systems

Language use is important because, among other things, it directly affects how we categorize, classify, and discuss risk.

Again, no smoking gun here and there’s plenty of room to make this more robust, but the use of the language used to talk about IoT it becomes more prevalent might be interesting to keep an eye on.

 

**********
If you’re interested … the three articles/posts from business magazines/blogs were:
Wall Street Journal –
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-internet-of-things-will-change-everything-1424664603
Forbes –
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/10/30/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-internet-of-things/
Business Insider –
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-internet-of-things-market-will-grow-2014-10

The three articles/posts from industry/trade magazines and blogs were:
CIO magazine –
http://www.cio.com/article/2923475/innovation/cios-put-the-internet-of-things-in-perspective.html
Dark Reading –
http://www.darkreading.com/partner-perspectives/intel/securing-the-internet-of-things/a/d-id/1318072
EE Times
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1325079

And the three articles/posts from vendor articles/posts were:
Cisco –
http://www.cisco.com/web/solutions/trends/iot/introduction_to_IoT_november.pdf
Microsoft –
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/internet-of-things.aspx
Atmel –
http://blog.atmel.com/2015/06/26/6-reasons-why-the-iots-true-value-remains-untapped/

Minuteness and power — learning to perceive IoT

physicsrockstars3.003

for those about to do physics, we salute you

Perceiving, working with, and managing risk around the Internet of Things (IoT) requires a new way of thinking. The vast and growing numbers of sensing-networked-computing devices, the great variability of types of those devices, the ambient-almost-invisible nature of many of the devices, and the emergent and unpredictable behavior from networked effects puts us into a whole new world. I don’t believe that, at present, we have the mindset or tools to even broadly perceive this cultural and technological change, much less manage risk around it.  In many ways, we don’t know where to start. The good news, though, is that there is historical precedent with changing how we perceive the world around us.

Physics rock stars of the 2nd millennium

While a lesser known name, one of the top 3 rock star physicists of the past half millennium or so is James Clerk Maxwell, sharing the stage with Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. While known primarily for his contributions to electromagnetic theory, he made contributions in several other areas as well to include governorscolor photography, the kinetic theory of gases.  It was this latter work on the distribution of particle velocities in a gas that helped evolve the notion of entropy and led to bold new ways of perceiving the world around us. And he did all of this in his short 48 years of life.

In his book, Maxwell’s Demon: Why Warmth Disperses and Time Passes, author and physics professor Van Baeyer describes Maxwell as particularly adept at marrying theory with what was observable in the lab or elsewhere in the natural world. As Maxwell worked to come to terms with the work that Joule, Rumford, and Clausius had done toward the development of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, he realized that he was entering a world that he could no longer directly observe. This was a world of unseeable atoms and molecules that could not be counted and whose individual behavior could not be known. As Von Baeyer describes,

“What troubled him was the fact that molecules were too small to be seen, too numerous to be accounted for individually, and too quick to be captured … he no longer had the control that he had become accustomed to …”

In short, he had to abandon his expectations of certainty and find a new way to understand this realm.

To me, this has some similarities to what we’re dealing with with IoT:

  • molecules were many IoT devices are too small to be seen
  • [molecules were] IoT devices are too numerous to be accounted for individually
  • [molecules were] too quick to be captured individual IoT devices change state too often to track

The increasingly frequent lack of visibility of IoT devices, the large numbers of devices, the potentially nondeterministic behavior of individual devices, and network effects create the high probability of emergent and completely unpredictable effects and outcomes.

“… building up in secret the forms of visible things …”

In Maxwell’s own words, he says,

“I have been carried … into the sanctuary of minuteness and of power, where molecules obey the laws of their existence, clash together in fierce collision, or grapple in yet more fierce embrace, building up in secret the forms of visible things.”

Of this, in particular, I believe that the phrase,

“… molecules … clash together in fierce collision or grapple in yet more fierce embrace … building up in secret the forms of visible things …”

speaks to emergent, unpredictable, and possibly even unknowable things.  And I’m not at all saying this is all bad on its own but rather that we’ll have to look at it, perceive it, and attempt to manage it differently than we have in the past.

Minuteness and power

In none of this am I trying to suggest that the Internet of Things is exactly like gas molecules in a balloon or that all of the properties and formulas of molecules in a gas (or wherever) apply to all systems of IoT devices. However, the change in thinking and perception of the world around us that is required might be similar. The numbers and variability of IoT devices are huge and rapidly growing, the behavior of any particular device is uncertain and possibly not knowable, and network effects will contribute to that unpredictability of systems as a whole. I’m hoping that in the onrush of excitement about IoT, as well as the unseen subtlety and nuance of IoT, that we’ll acknowledge and respect the effects of that minuteness and power and work to adjust our perceptions and approaches to managing risk.

Who’s building your IoT data pipeline?

data pipelines require labor too

IoT data pipelines require labor too

There is a lot of excitement around IoT systems for companies, institutions, and governments that sense, aggregate, and publish useful, previously unknown information via dashboards, visualizations, and reporting.  In particular, there has been much focus on the IoT endpoints that sense energy and environmental quantities and qualities in a multitude of ways. Similarly, everybody and their brother has a dashboard to sell you. And while visualization tools are not yet as numerous, they too are growing in number and availability. What is easy to miss, though, in IoT sensor and reporting deployments is that pipeline of data collection, aggregation, processing, and reporting/visualization. How does the data get from all of those sensors and processes along the way so that it can be reported or visualized? This part can be more difficult than it initially appears.

Getting from the many Point A’s to Point B

While ‘big data’, analysis, and visualization have been around for a few years and continue to evolve, the new possibilities brought on by IoT sensing devices have been most recent news.  Getting an individual’s IoT data from the point of sensing to a dashboard or similar reporting tool is generally not an issue. This is because data is coming from only one (or a few) sensing points and will (in theory) only be used by that individual. However, for companies, institutions, and governments that seek to leverage IoT sensing and aggregating systems to bring about increased operating effectiveness and ultimately cost savings, this is not a trivial task. Reliably and continuously collecting data from hundreds, thousands, or more points, is not a slam dunk.

Companies and governments typically have pre-existing network and computing infrastructure systems. For these new IoT systems to work, the many sensing devices (IoT endpoints) need to be installed by competent and trusted professionals. Further, that data needs to be collected and aggregated by a system or device that knows how to talk to the endpoints. After that (possibly before), the data needs to be processed to handle sensing anomalies across the array of sensors and from there, the creation of operational/system health data and indicators is highly desirable so that the new IoT system can be monitored and maintained. Finally, data analysis and massaging is completed so that the data can be published in a dashboard, report, or visualization. The question is, who does this work? Who connects these dots and maintains that connection?

who supplies the labor to build the pipeline?

who supplies the labor to build the pipeline?

The supplier of the IoT endpoint devices won’t be the ones to build this data pipeline. Similarly, the provider for the visualization/reporting technology won’t build the pipeline. It probably will default to the company or government that is purchasing the new IoT technology to build and maintain that data pipeline. In turn, to meet the additional demand on effort, this means that the labor will need to be contracted out or diverted from internal resources, both of which incur costs, whether direct cost or in opportunity cost.

Patching IoT endpoint devices – Surprise! it probably won’t get done

Additional effects of implementing large numbers of IoT devices and maintaining the health of the same include:

  1. the requirement to patch the devices, or
  2. accept the risk of unpatched devices, or
  3. some hybrid of the two.

Unless the IoT endpoint vendor supplies the ability to automatically patch endpoint devices in a way that works on your network, those devices probably won’t get patched.  From a risk management point of view, probably the best approach is to identify the highest risk endpoint devices and try to keep those patched. But I suspect even that will be difficult to accomplish.

Also, as endpoint devices become increasingly complicated and have richer feature sets to remain competitive, they have increased ability to do more damage to your network and assets or those of others on the Internet. Any one of the above options increase cost to the organization and yet that cost typically goes unseen.

Labor leaks

Anticipating labor requirements along the IoT data pipeline is critical for IoT system success. However, this part is often not seen and leaks away. We tend to get caught up in the IoT devices at the beginning of the data pipeline and the fancy dashboards at the end and forget about the hard work of building a quality pipeline in the middle. In our defense, this is where the bulk of the marketing and sales efforts are — at each end of the pipeline. This effort of building a reliable, secure, and continuous data pipeline is a part of the socket concept that I mentioned in an earlier post, Systems in the Seam – Shortcomings in IoT systems implementation.

With rapidly evolving new sensing technologies and new ways to integrate and represent data, we are in an exciting time and have the potential to be more productive, profitable, safe, and efficient. However, it’s not all magical — the need for labor has not gone away. The requirement to connect the dots, the devices and points along the pipeline, is still there. If we don’t capture this component, our ROI from IoT systems investments will never be what we hoped it would be.

 

Creating initial IoT risk categories

With the onslaught of new IoT systems and devices as well as existing old school IoT-ish systems such as HVAC, we all know that this is risk that needs to be assessed and managed. However, some of it is so new that we don’t really know where to start. We don’t have a broadly understood language to discuss, categorize, and classify new IoT systems. There has to be at least some rough categorization if there is going to be any attempt to manage risk brought to our organizations by evolving and rapidly growing numbers of IoT systems and devices.

Whence it came — using provenance to create IoT risk buckets

One approach to an initial categorization to IoT systems and devices can be to identify where those IoT systems are coming from. How do they show up in your offices, buildings, and corporate/institutional spaces? How did they get there?

Some IoT just 'walks on' to corporate and institutional spaces while other IoT systems are purchased via different mechanisms

Some IoT just ‘walks on’ to corporate and institutional spaces while other IoT systems are purchased via different mechanisms

While trying to categorize IoT systems and devices by function, features, behavior, etc is a logical approach, it can be difficult to do in practice because so many new and varied IoT systems, devices, and applications are constantly showing up on our networks. Categorization and classification with this more traditional method can be a moving target, at least for now. Also, this approach can lead us down a rabbit hole looking for a perfect (and complex) taxonomy that would take a long time to develop, would likely be poorly understood, and probably largely not agreed upon. It reminds me of some older large websites that might have had perfect, library-like taxonomies but where 90% of the pages were never accessed.  The website’s taxonomy might have been awesome, but no one cared.  In fact, that perfect taxonomy might have actually diminished usability.

To begin the process of managing IoT risk now, we need some categorization now so that we have some buckets of risk to work with. This doesn’t mean that efforts to develop other classification schemes should be abandoned, but rather that categorizing IoT risk by source, aka the-way-it-got-here, is an approach that we can work with now.

Size matters

The manner in which businesses or institutions purchase IoT devices and systems typically varies with size of the organization. Smaller organizations will likely have fewer purchasing mechanisms than larger organizations. For example a small company might write a check or use a company credit card to purchase a simple IoT-based security system. Where as a larger organization might have a person or purchasing department that handles many purchases, uses purchase orders and invoicing, and probably has some purchasing policies and criteria and is used to purchase an HVAC system, for example.  And yet an even bigger organization or government might have a central planning office that makes recommendations for new buildings or large scale building or community asset modifications. Larger organizations probably have all of these.

Regardless of how many purchasing options an organization has, using purchasing options to create categorized buckets of risk for IoT devices and systems could be a helpful way to go.

Walk-On-IoT — bring it, wear it, or fly it to work

One thing that all organizations have in common is that they all have “walk-on-IoT”. By the walk-on-IoT category, I mean IoT systems purchased or acquired by an individual on their own and that they then bring to work. Whether it is FitBit devices, drones, robotics, consumer networked video cameras, or others, these are devices that a person can purchase at BestBuy, Target, Amazon, or even their local drugstore and bring directly to their corporate or institutional work place.

Other potential source-based IoT risk categories

Some other potential source-based IoT risk categorizations might be:

  • IoT devices/systems purchased with a company credit card
  • IoT devices/systems purchased via a company’s central purchasing/contracting group
  • IoT devices/systems recommended in the course of planning for major building modifications or new buildings (eg, in the case of large businesses and cities)
Identifying where an IoT system or device came from as a basis for initial IoT risk categorization

Identifying where an IoT system or device came from as a basis for initial IoT risk categorization

With these categories, we can start to ask some high level risk questions within each category. For example, is it even possible to feasibly manage this risk? If this risk is unmitigated, what is the impact? For example, can I really manage FitBit devices that walk on to my network? Probably not easily. More importantly, do I really care if FitBit users use their devices on my networks?  Maybe not.

Conversely, because of privacy issues and other concerns, I might indeed care about how an enterprise-wide biometric building access system is selected, installed, commissioned, and supported over its lifetime. Furthermore, this risk probably is manageable with thoughtful institutional safeguards.

Source-based categories can lend themselves to unique risk mitigation approaches

Finally, sourced-based IoT risk categorization can also provide some natural mitigation approaches. For example, purchases via central purchasing can provide the opportunity to see a purchase request (prior to actual purchase) and then provide guidance on the selection of the IoT system, help identify resources for secure implementation, as well as help develop long term support plans for the IoT system. While less involved, IoT purchases via corporate credit card have records amenable for review so that an organization can get an estimation of number and variety of types of IoT devices and systems arriving in the enterprise. This can help with ongoing mitigation and support services planning.

Source-based categories for IoT system risk analysis and management for the enterprise can be a place to start. It is not the end-all by any stretch. As more IoT systems and devices enter our enterprises, we will learn more about their short and long term effects as well as emergent effects between IoT systems. From this we can continue to evolve categories and approaches, but if we need a place to start now, source-based risk categories are not a bad idea.

Developing an IoT vendor strategy

The vendor count for IoT systems that a company or organization manages will only increase in the coming months and years and it will possibly increase substantially. Some of this will be from traditional systems like HVAC that have been in the space longer than most and are maturing and extending their IoT development and deployment.  New growth in an organizations’s vendor count will be from vendors with brand new products and service lines made possible by IoT innovation and expansion.  Many of the benefits of IoT will be from products and services from different vendors that interact and exchange information with each other such as an IoT implementation leveraging the cloud.   Regardless of the source, the number of IoT vendors that an organization has will grow.

This increased IoT system vendor count is not a bad thing in its own right. However, a somewhat insidious effect is that the number of relationships to be managed (or not managed) will grow even faster than the increasing vendor count itself.

number of relationships grows increasingly faster than the number of nodes

number of relationships grows increasingly faster than the number of nodes

Relationships have friction

Every relationship has friction or loss from an idealized state. Nature has plenty of examples —  pressure loss in a pipe, channel capacity in information theory, marriage, and heat engine efficiency established nearly 200 years ago by Sadi Carnot. Carl Von Clausewitz famously established the concept of friction in war in his book On War in which he sometimes evokes the image of two wrestlers in a relationship.

Relationships between business customer and their vendors have friction too — from day-to-day relationship management overhead such as communication planning and contract management to more challenging aspects such as expectation alignment/misalignment and resource allocation problems.

heatengine

there’s a limit to how much work can get done between any two points

Friction in a business customer-vendor relationship (unavoidable to some degree) means less information gets communicated than expected, similar to Shannon’s observations on information exchange. And similar to limits expressed with Carnot’s engine efficiency, less work gets done in practice than in the idealized state. Particularly for the former, a reduction in expected information exchange, by definition, increases uncertainty. Further, friction in a network of relationships can manifest itself in yet even more uncertainty.  Less work gets done than is expected and the state of things is unclear.

With a growing network of nodes (IoT vendors in this case), the even faster growing number of relationships, and the friction that naturally exists between them, our business environments are becoming increasingly complex and accompanied with increased uncertainty. Vendor management and its associated risk, in the traditional sense, have left the building.

Sans organizational IoT strategy, IoT vendors will naturally optimize for themselves

While a strategy around IoT deployment and IoT vendor management can be difficult to devise and establish given the complexity and relative newness of the phenomenon, we have to acknowledge that vendors/providers will naturally optimize for themselves if we don’t have an IoT implementation strategy for our organizations.

This is not an easy thing. We really don’t know what is going to happen next in IoT innovation, so how do we establish strategy? Also, the strategy might cost something in terms of technical framework and staffing — and that is particularly hard to sell internally. However, without some form of an IoT system implementation strategy, each individual provider will offer a product or service line implementation that’s best for them. They won’t be managing the greater good of our organization. This is not evil, it’s natural in our market economy — but we as business consumers need to be aware of this.

Similar to the concept of building a socket in the last post, in establishing a policy or framework for IoT vendor relationships, some IoT vendor considerations might include:

  • Are there standard frameworks that can be deployed to support requirements from multiple different IoT vendors? For example, does every vendor need their own dedicated, staffed, and managed database? If individual vendors demand dedicated support frameworks/infrastructure, are they willing to pay for it or otherwise subsidize it?
  • Does your vendor offer a VM (virtual machine) image that works in your data center or with your cloud provider? Do they offer a service that helps integrate their VM image into your data center or cloud environment?
  • Are there protocols that can be leveraged across multiple different vendors? Does the vendor in consideration participate in open-source protocols? For example, for managing trust, Trusted Computing Group has extended some of their efforts in an open source trust platform to the IoT space.
  • Does the vendor provide a mechanism to help you manage them for performance?  If so, the vendor acknowledges the additional complexity that managing many IoT systems brings and offers to help you review and manage performance.

While an IoT framework or policy at this stage is almost guaranteed to be imperfect, incomplete, and ephemeral, the cost of not having one puts your organization at every IoT system provider’s whim.  And that cost is probably much higher.

Systems in the seam — shortcomings in IoT system implementation

Jose Abreu

Coming apart at the seams

One of the greatest areas of risk related to the Internet of Things (IoT) in an organization, corporation, or institution comes not necessarily from the IoT systems themselves, but rather the implementation of the IoT systems. A seam forms between the delivery of the system by the vendor/provider and the use of that system by the customer.  Seams, in themselves, are not bad. In fact, they’re essential for complex systems. They connect and integrate different parts of a system to work towards a cohesive whole.  However, how we choose to approach and manage these seams makes a difference.

Managing the seam

Seams are where interesting things happen. College baseball changed its ball seams this year to flat instead of raised to drive more hits and home runs and, sure enough, balls are traveling an average of 20 feet further.  There are seam routes in football where the receiver tries to exploit the gap between defenders. And anyone that’s ever sat in the window seat by the wing of an airplane can attest that there are many more seams than they would probably care to see. Finally, of course, seams can also be where things come apart.

More seams than I would care to be aware of

More seams than we would probably care to acknowledge

Vendor relationships and vendor management have always been important for firms and institutions. However, the invasive nature of IoT systems makes vendor management particularly important to successful IoT system implementation and subsequent operation. However, the work and staffing required to manage those customer-vendor relationships and to provide the oversight needed to operate safe and effective systems often gets obfuscated by the promises and shininess of the new technology.

IoT systems are different from traditional deployments of workstations, laptops, and servers. By their very nature, IoT systems have the ability to sense, record, transmit, and/or interact with the environments in which we live and work. Further complicating the IoT systems deployments and support, these systems may well be invisible to us and organizational IT might not even know the systems exist much less be able to provide central IT support.

Firms and institutions purchase IoT devices and systems en masse to address some need in their operation. These IoT systems might be related to environmental control and energy efficiency, safety of staff and the public (fire, security, other), biometric authentication systems, surveillance systems and others. Because of this, IoT devices can be brought into an organization’s physical and cyber space by the hundreds or thousands or more. When such systems and devices are partially or improperly configured, there can be significant consequences to the organization. Similarly, a lack of planning of long-term support, whether local or via maintenance contract with the vendor or both, can also have significant implications.

Cost of building a socket

In most organizations, implementing a third-party solution, whether hardware, software, SaaS, or hybrid, requires a supporting infrastructure for that solution. I call this supporting structure a socket. The customer organization must create a socket that allows the new vendor solution to interface with appropriate parts of the customer’s existing infrastructure. Taking the time and resources to plan, build, and maintain this socket is integral to the operational success of the new system. It also provides the opportunity to manage some of the risk that the new system introduces to the organization.

VendorSocket

Building a socket to support vendor IoT systems

Know yourself

One of the worst case scenarios for an organization is believing that an IoT system is managed when it is actually not managed. At this point in the evolution of IoT deployments, I suspect that this scenario is more of the rule than the exception. Given the scale and speed of IoT innovation and growth and the lack of precedence for managing this sort of risk, the famed Sun Tzu guidance to know yourself can be elusive.  The IoT phenomena will change how we seek to know and characterize our organizations as a part of the risk management process.  A good place to start knowing ourselves is planning, building, and managing that seam where the interesting things happen.

Socializing Internet of Things risk

IoTRisk-g

adding risk from IoT doesn’t mean the existing risk to an organization conveniently disappeared …

There is a lot of conversation regarding security, privacy, safety and other issues regarding the ongoing proliferation of the Internet of Things (IoT). While IoT promises many helpful and useful things, concern about how it might (and will) be misused are valid. However, there are more than a couple of challenges to addressing this new source of risk to an organization.

Lions and Tigers and Bears

It’s easy for anyone to call out things that could happen with the IoT growth. Medical devices can be hacked , SmartMeters can be compromised and steal privacy information, the utility grid is widening its attack surface, drone video is intercepted and hacked , and countless others . Long live fear, uncertainty, and doubt, right?  While highlighting examples of IoT issues is important, the larger and more difficult thing for an organization to do is to communicate risk around IoT in a way that allows it to be managed.

Communicating IoT risk in an organization

Within an organization that already manages risk in some form, communicating and socializing the idea of IoT risk can be a challenge. There are at least two broad components to that challenge:

  • IoT defies traditional classification/categorization and is still little understood. It’s hard for people to wrap their heads around it
  • the other risks that the organization faces are still there. They haven’t gone away and IoT risk only adds to that

In order to begin to manage IoT risk, management must have some vocabulary for it. IoT is still new, its effects largely unknown and likely emergent, and precedents and analogies are few. We need to surface some language and concepts for it so that it can be discussed.

Another significant aspect of communicating IoT risk issues is that the other risks that an organization already faces — safety, liability, financial loss, reputation damage, technology challenges, business competition, and many more have not gone away. These risks are still there. We are asking senior management to make room in their list of existing risks that they are wrestling with to add yet more risk.  And possibly substantially more risk. Nobody wants to hear this.

Because of this, how we communicate these security, privacy, and risk issues is important. We are competing for a small slice of available cognitive bandwidth, so we must use this opportunity to communicate as well as we can.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat

If you either want to or are tasked with communicating IoT risk in your organization, I would suggest starting here:

  • find out what other risk the organization is already working with. Is there an annual report? Is there someone in the know in your network?
  • identify places where IoT is already in your organization or where you expect it
  • use the language of managing existing risk in your organization to begin to talk about IoT risk. If you have existing IoT risk examples, describe them in traditional risk language for your organization
  • repeat

A key to this communication is to get some IoT risk concepts out early. Give management some language to use to reflect on IoT risk and to discuss with their peers. It’s also important not to be heavy-handed in the approach. Yes, IoT risk is important, the impacts potentially very high, and the opportunities for abuse many, but the other existing risks that an organization faces haven’t gone away and they still must be managed too.

Chip producer ARM — major IoT player?

ARM ChipUK company ARM Holdings appears to be backing up its claims as a major processor design player in the Internet of Things (IoT) market. ARM signed 53 licenses for processor designs compared with 26 the previous year.

Smart phones to IoT

While ARM is the chip designer behind the vast majority of the smart phones in the world, it is also aggressively entering the machine-to-machine market, a significant subset of the Internet of Things.

ARM further signaled its interest in Internet of Things marketshare with its purchase of Offspark last week, an IoT security firm. The company is also moving into server technology which, given the symbiotic relationship of IoT and the Cloud, could be a winning combination. ARM produced 12 billion chips in 2014.

Over 25 IoT devices per person on the planet

While some predict ARM might be slowing because of projected reduced smart phone sales, projections of 25 plus networked computing devices per person on the Earth, might give ARM plenty of room to work.